August 22, 2012

●A report comes out that a couple dozen House Republicans engaged in an alcohol-induced frolic, in one case nude, in the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus is believed to have walked on water, calmed the storm and, nearby, turned water into wine and performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes.

●Rep. Todd Akin, Missouri’s Republican nominee for Senate, suggests there is such a thing as “legitimate rape” and purports that women’s bodies have mysterious ways to repel the seed of rapists. He spends the next 48 hours rejecting GOP leaders’ demands that he quit the race.

●Weather forecasts show that a storm, likely to grow into Hurricane Isaac, may be chugging toward . . . Tampa, where Republicans will open their quadrennial nominating convention on Monday.

If these 3 things belong in a set, I'd say it's a set of things that Democrats and their allied media have gotten excited about pumping up beyond any meaning. Dragging God into the mix is just part of that. Now, I suspect that Todd Akin himself believes that God has sent him this tribulation to overcome, and that's why he's got the spirit to defy the worldly establishment Republicans for the salvation of millions of innocent unborns.

But the other 2 things are the essence of stupid. It's stupid to push them as significant issues, and bringing in God is close to flaunting that you think God is some kind of joke — as fictional as the humanity social conservatives attribute to an embryo.

If God controls the weather, let's not worry about global warming. Or are you going to say He controls the weather but not the climate? We're talking omnipotence, or do you think that's some kind of joke?

But this skinny dipping story... what the hell? Hell, I say. Swimming naked has been the normal way to go swimming since forever. I'm virtually certain Jesus and his disciples swam naked in the Sea of Galilee. God sends us into the world naked. The unborn — are they human? — float naked in the waters of the womb. Is there something wrong with nakedness that the Democrats would like to make a big deal about? Some Republicans were unholy in the Holy Land?

Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
God says, “Out on Highway 61”

Driving somewhere between Fargo and Madison the other day, Meade asked me what's Bob Dylan's greatest line. I said "The next time you see me comin’ you better run."

If you really believed in God, you'd be careful how you used his name. You'd be afraid. Dylan's Abraham, told to kill Isaac, said: Man, you must be puttin’ me on... Do you think God is joking?

That God is sending Isaac to Florida as a way to punish, or whatever, Republicans, ignores the misery that the storm will inflict on millions of others in Florida and elsewhere that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Republican Party. It's like deciding to fly a plane into a building that holds a lot of Muslims to protest perceived anti-Muslim slights from the country in which the building stands.

Coincidences happen. Isaac in or (more likely) near Tampa when Republicans are there is just such a thing -- a coincidence. To read that as a sign is to betray one's ignorance of mathematical probabilities.

I perceive that Dana Millbank has nothing original to write and is regurgitating internet memes.

I can see how the Lefties are getting more desperate by the day what with the network polls showing Zero's lead shrinking and others giving the Romster a shot at MI, WI, and (dare I say?) IL, but making sport of the Big Guy is asking for it.

MadisonMan said...

That God is sending Isaac to Florida as a way to punish, or whatever, Republicans, ignores the misery that the storm will inflict on millions of others in Florida and elsewhere that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Republican Party.

Be interesting to see what Zero does - will his usual incompetence come shining through and we have a, "Big Sis, you're doing a heckuva job", moment?

Highway 61 - what a great song. I've always heard it via Johnny Winter, and what a super job he does growling it out. The one time I saw Dylan he didn't play that (he opened for Santana?). Very disappointing.

Question to serious conservatives - how can Romney & Ryan say with a straight face that they now would allow rape as an exception when the GOP plank just adopted does not allow it? How can you vote for somebody that politically crass?

MadisonMan, given the track of the storm it isn't all that likely to be all that bad here. But it will likely cause Hell in Haiti. (They can't even handle weak storms without problems). So the question is, Why does Dana Milbank and the Democratic Party hate poor Third World Black people?

You know, Alex, this could have been avoided if your guys were running around looking to talk about the uterus. Failure to stay on message begins with the idiot Akin opening his mouth.

That said, it will be funny if Akin actually wins anyway. The reason he's the Rep nominee is because the Dems spent money to get him nominated, thinking he would be their best chance to win. If they lose anyway, Akin is a self-inflicted wound.

Meade said...""Do you think He's some kind of joke?' Wouldn't it be sort of funny if Jesus spoke to you and asked, 'So, Ann, how are you doing?'"

Yes, I received your letter yesterday(About the time the doorknob broke)When you asked how I was doingWas that some kind of joke?All these people that you mentionYes, I know them, they’re quite lameI had to rearrange their facesAnd give them all another nameRight now I can’t read too goodDon’t send me no more letters, noNot unless you mail themFrom Desolation Row

Who really gives a damn what Dana Milbank thinks or writes--he is an egregious ass. Anyone who takes his commentary seriously is equally an ass. Milbank epitomizes the nature of modern day "journalists."

I like to see a Gallup poll that examines whether Americans are more concerned about the Chinese badminton scandal or skinnydipping in the Sea of Galilee.....You've got to salute the Democrats though. The big issue of the coming weeks will be some congressman's fatuous remark about the probability of pregnancy in rape victims. By God, that's the big problem facing America right now: pregnant rape victims. I was watching MSNBC (briefly) this morning, and they had actually found a woman who had become pregnant subsequent to a rape. She explained how deeply painful she felt the Congressman's remarks were. Rape and pregnancy are challenging events, but nothing on earth can compare to the pain inflicted by Republican's ignorant remarks.

It's stupid to push them as significant issues, and bringing in God is close to flaunting that you think God is some kind of joke — as fictional as the humanity social conservatives attribute to an embryo.

It's still early for me and the old synapses haven't quite gotten the wake-up message from the coffee yet, but am I missing something here? Is the bolded part supposed to be a continuation of the preceding thoughts you're attributing to "you"? Because it doesn't really come across that way, and it's snotty and dumb in a way I've never seen from you here.

Anyway, pro-lifers aren't the radical ones. I would be glad to gain any rstrictions at all, and will vote for someone with a less strict understanding than I have. Abortionistas are the ones who keep voting for the right to partial birth abortion. I would gladly leave the question to the states.

I will say, that for a group which constantly pats itself on the back for being intelligent, nuanced and living in the reality-based community, Democrats have an exceedingly difficult time picturing Christianity in any but the most shallow of ways.

Titus said...Lots of vagina talk lately.That's cool.It even got me to watch a video on how to insert a tampon in a twat.You ladies do this in public restrooms!Next time I am in a public restroom I am going to see if I can see any tampon insertion remnants.This election has turned into the election of the vagina.

In the Gospels Christ mentions the fall of a tower that crushed a lot of people and asks whether the disciples think that those who were crushed were sinners. "Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?" No, he says, all must repent. All must repent - this is what Dana Milbank would know if he knew his Christian heritage instead of his cheap liberalism.

PS. Then Christ tells a parable of a fig tree which has produced no fruit for three years and the owner wants to cut it down. The gardener says - no, give it one more year, i.e., four years. And then "if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." Does this mean: "Vote against Obama if he hasn't fixed the economy in four years?"

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address contains a really great meditation on what God wills versus what man asks including these words:

"The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Ann, last Sunday, Dana had an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, condemning those who scream that the Family Research Center equals hate speech. But he couldn't resist saying he didn't much like Glenn Beck because "more than one Beck follower became violent." Is this a fact? Who? When? Where? Mr. Milbanks think it is somehow common knowledge that GB fans are, oh, I don't know, shooting up movie theaters or going on rampages but provides not one shred of evidence. Ann, Milbanks doesn't just live Jonestown, he is currentlystirring the sugar into the Koolade.Thanks for pointing out his deception - again.

A report comes out that a couple dozen House Republicans engaged in an alcohol-induced frolic, in one case nude, in the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus is believed to have walked on water, calmed the storm and, nearby, turned water into wine and performed the miracle of the loaves and fishe

I like to see a Gallup poll that examines whether Americans are more concerned about the Chinese badminton scandal or skinnydipping in the Sea of Galilee.....You've got to salute the Democrats though. The big issue of the coming weeks will be some congressman's fatuous remark about the probability of pregnancy in rape victims. By God, that's the big problem facing America right now: pregnant rape victims. I was watching MSNBC (briefly) this morning, and they had actually found a woman who had become pregnant subsequent to a rape. She explained how deeply painful she felt the Congressman's remarks were. Rape and pregnancy are challenging events, but nothing on earth can compare to the pain inflicted by Republican's ignorant remarks.

Is it wrong to notice that they aren't condemning that MN legislator who got a blowjob from a 17 year old boy in a bathroom? Apparently, THAT behavior is OK.

Question to serious conservatives - how can Romney & Ryan say with a straight face that they now would allow rape as an exception when the GOP plank just adopted does not allow it? How can you vote for somebody that politically crass?I fail to see how it's "politically crass" as a nominee of a particular party to diverge slightly from an official party plank.

Millbank's melange of memes doesn't have much to do with reality. He calls the extreme mainstream. Fitting Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson into the same paragraph borders on the inane.

Dana should escape his little Beltway cultural henhouse at the WaPo and roost for a bit somewhere in flyover country, to meet some conservatives and Christians in the real world. Maybe he would find out what really motivates voters. But I think he's chicken.

"From then on Sullavan became increasingly depressed, unable to sleep until she took her own life by overdosing on barbiturates in 1960. Her daughter Bridget took her own life through suicide nine months later and her son Bill committed suicide in 2008."

God gave us "free choice" or "free will". Sometimes we make good decisions and sometimes we don't. But God gave us the power of self determination which is why separation of church and state works in the Christian religion as long as there is also free speech to discuss the pros and cons of the various choices.

If a naked Congressman had walked on water in (sorry, on) the Sea of Galilee, that would have been indecent exposure. But as long as he was in it, not on it, and as long as he wasn't violating Israeli law in some way, what exactly is the problem? Is it just Democrats assuming that Republicans are all the kind of extreme prude that hardly existed even in the Victorian Age? Or do they think that Republicans are like lepers or Indian untouchables, polluting all they touch if there's no barrier of clothing in between? I'm not sure what this supposed scandal tells us about Democrats, but whatever it is can't be good.

When I suggested, in another recent thread, that conservatives don't gain much from talking about social issues themselves but do gain a lot from goading liberals into talking about them-- this is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.

Endured a typhoon two weeks ago. Thirty-five inches of rain fell in less than seventy-two hours on a city with drainage much like that in Tampa, but with more than ten times the population confined to a much smaller area. My car swam through a puddle deeper than the floorboards. Had to replace the starter, the distributor and the coil as each part shorted out with water trapped inside.

Charlemagne used that approach. He had Saxons asked if they were Christians, and then murdered them. If they were not Christians he justified their death as killing a G-dless Pagan. If they were Christians, he justified their death as sending them to Heaven with a clean soul, immediately after confession.

Mikio is apparently entirely ignorant of basic Christian doctrine, so I'll spell it out for him/her. Christians traditionally have believed that you have to be baptized to get to Heaven. Babies who die or are murdered before they are born are obviously not baptized. The Catholic Church has traditionally taught that they go to Limbo, which is a lot nicer than Hell - no pain or suffering - but not nearly as nice as Heaven. That's the same place virtuous pagans go, as in the First Circle of Dante's Inferno: technically Hell, but really rather nice, and definitely not Heaven. They don't get to see God, which, to Catholics, is a major disappointment. Now Christian belief is quite varied over time and over different denominations, but someone who has apparently never even heard of Limbo should probably not be trying to tell others what all Christians believe.

The Catholic Church teaches that the "status of aborted infants utterly surpasses the bounds of the sacramental authority of the Church and of divine revelation." At present, aborted children are styled as "Companion Martyrs to the Holy Innocents."

In other words, while we may hope and pray that the soul of an aborted child is received into heaven, we cannot know and will not know until the Final Judgment. Of course, the ultimate decision flows from the Divine Mercy of God Himself, who can let into heaven anyone He chooses.

Evidently he/she does. That seems to be the inference. If you have a soul at any age, and it will go to heaven, you can be killed.

If a fetus doesn't have a soul, it is ok to kill it too. Seems like a win/win for the pro abortion people. There is no instance in which it is wrong to kill the baby.

Now....I wonder what Miko's take is on animals. Do they have souls? Do they go to heaven too. All Dogs Go To Heaven. If not, is it then ok to do with what you will, torture, maim, mistreat and kill at will.

Don M said... And of course there is such a thing as legimate rape. That would be distinguished from Tawana Brawley Rape, or Duke Lacross Team Rape.

Another distinction would be between Forcible Rape and Statutory Rape.

As long as we're looking closely, I'd like to examine including the "incest" exception along with rape.

Why is incest included? We must be talking about adult voluntary incest, involuntary and minor incest already falling under the rape exception. Why would this merit an exception? The NYT ran an article not terribly long ago about adults in a long term incestuous relationship. It's good enough for polite society but still merits a special exception? It doesn't fit.

The only answer I can surmise which fits the circumstances is that incest increases the revulsion reaction and therefore emotional appeals are more effective with it. Not a sound basis for legislation.

The fascinating LaAlthouse has let us see a rare glimpse into her soul by stating that the "best Dylan line written" was, "You do what you want Abe but the next time you see me comin, you'd better run."( and she is right.)

The syllogism has played itelf out: Althouse has special wisdom...and the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord...and she picked Dylan's verse repeating God's demand that we fear Him to be her favorite.

@Don M So you think it is ok to murder people, if their souls go to heaven?

Stop projecting your beliefs onto me and thinking you're trapping me in contradiction. I don't think abortion is murder, nor do I believe there are souls or a Heaven. Consistency. Try it sometime. Oh, you can't, because it would show you trapping yourself in your own retarded/disingenuous conservative stance.

— as fictional as the humanity social conservatives attribute to an embryo.

Of course, the embryos found in women after fertilization are cat embryos, not human embryos, until they reach a point at which progressives and feminists deem them to be "persons."

And "humanity" doesn't really mean: "1. Humans considered as a group; the human race.2. The condition or quality of being human" when the term is applied to human embryos.

Perhaps some day the pro-aborts will define "humanity" as in when the condition can be attributed to a human embryo. Care to take that on Professor?

As nearly as I can tell, among the pro-aborts "humanity" or "personhood" attach to human embryos or fetuses at the moment a pregnant woman decides not to have an abortion. But that doesn't seem very scientific, now does it?

As for lefties, Milbank and the other progressive mediaswine, nobody really thinks they believe in "God." They only believe in "god" who is a fictional character they can call upon when they want to dump on non-lefties for doing what lefties otherwise think is cool, or at least okay, when done by lefties.

And here I assumed Mikio deleted those messages because he finally realized he'd just confessed publicly to not knowing the meaning of the word "if". The embarrassment of a few typos is as nothing next to that.

Anytime someone, who does not read or study the Bible, attempts to interpret it, reveals himself/herself to be a complete buffoon. Except of course to those, who also do not read or study the Bible, who agree with aforementioned ignoramus's conclusions. That person is viewed as the enlightened one.

BTW, it's a baby - no matter the act. What's so hard to comprehend here?

Abortion and nudity function separately as Godwin's Law-like phenomena in USA political propaganda. Common, when someone is losing, or thinks they are, to raise "abortion" or nudity/"indiscretion" - e.g. "war on women", which cleverly raises both simultaneously. Same rhetorical device as screaming "Hitler, "Nazi."

I'm glad Akin has stood ground and hope he continues. It's about doing that, not abortion.

I hope Prince Henry of Wales does as well. Life is not prudish and most certainly not puritanical. It was fun to swim at Black's Beach. No alcohol required.

Dana is spouting campaign propaganda, illustrating Godwin's Law, using "abortion" and "nudity" in place of "Hitler" and "Nazi."

If Republicans can't burn through the fires thrown at them and hurl decisively worse at their adversaries, they are unfit to represent the nation and her citizens deserve to grind their teeth. It is not an even battle. Moral imperative is definitely on one side but if moral courage is insufficient, the imperative will have to abide time under the blows of further traduction, regroup, recharge and screw up the skill and especially courage to get the job done.

This is why Akin standing is imperative. Attack through and around the variants of Godwin's Law. Also, let the blast of those variants free-form. Advice of Gamaliel.

God isn't a joke but he is a joker, an intensely didactic joker. And I compose that sentence to include the modern entertainment referent of the word.

Although used as propaganda, Ds are right that the election is about abortion. Every one is until the act is a choice rather than a law. Damn the selfish lawyers!

I am sorry to have written at such length. I did not have time to be brief.

The lines are already being blurred by 'ethicists' who think that it is perfectly ok to kill babies after they are born and all the way up into toddler-hood, since they are not persons. They are only "potential persons" In their definition a person is one who is "is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."

So. In this warpped view of the Mikio's of the world. Not only the unborn, but also born infants and living children are fair game for death.

Next....Jews, Gypsies, the mentally retarded, the elderly and those who don't conform to the proscribed advancement of the Master Race, all 'ethically' set for death.

Thus our society descends into hell on earth.

When you have no moral compass, no inner faith or beliefs to guide you.....anything can be accepted, even the utmost evil of murdering your own children.

"...as fictional as the humanity social conservatives attribute to an embryo."

Wow. At conception, a unique DNA is created which henceforth directs the growth of that organism. Both the sperm and the egg have, in a sense, ceased to exist. They stop being what they were (with their unique, separate DNA) and combine to form a brand new member of the human species. This is the scientific basis for what pro-lifers believe is the beginning of individual human life as we understand it.

I've heard various explanations for why we should consider humanity to begin at a later point (implantation, frequency of spontaneous abortions, twinning, etc.) but they all seem to be flailing wildly for some justification for abortion and none of them can give a scientific, firm, verifiable point at which humanity would begin and abortion would be proscribed.

Ann, since you say it is a fiction to apply humanity to the embryo, and since you are a supporter of abortion rights, and since, I assume, you believe that at some point around the time of birth, the destruction of this organism would/should be unlawful, can you please tell us at what point the organism's humanity begins and how we may verify that scientifically, so that we may determine what rights we shall/shall not give to an organism that is either a human or not?

The Church has NEVER authoritatively taught that unbaptized babies go to "Limbo," nor has the Church ever taught the existence of Limbo.

Rather, the existence of Limbo and unbaptized babies going there (and perhaps virtuous pagans) was raised as a possibility by various theologians to avoid the problem of the seeming injustice of a baby who had never personally done anything sinful spending eternity in Hell, given the Church's teaching on the necessity of baptism.

With respect to such unbaptized babies, what the Church does teach is that they are commended to the mercy of God -- that although baptism is normally necessary to salvation because it is the usual means to remove the stain of original sin and restore a person to a state of grace, God can in His mercy remove that stain Himself by alternate means without water baptism (as He did in the case of Immaculate Mary), so as to permit even unbaptized babies to be saved if it be His will.

Their God resides in the White House and they rejoice in his leadership. The type of leadership that would be happy to kill a baby after it survived an abortion. He voted for this and it does not trouble him in the least.

Fine, Bender, I'll rephrase what I wrote: "the Church has traditionally suggested that unbaptized babies may well go to Limbo, rather than Heaven". Happy with that? Because I certainly did not put any "authoritatively" in what I wrote. Limbo may not be Church doctrine, but it's the only hypothesis anyone's come up with so far other than "God only knows".

Of course, my main point remains: Mikio's claim that all Christians think that aborted babies go straight to Heaven is simply false - and Mikio doesn't seem to have the grace to come back and admit that.

DBQ wrote: "@ hombre -The lines are already being blurred by 'ethicists' who think that it is perfectly ok to kill babies after they are born and all the way up into toddler-hood, since they are not persons."

This is not much different than the rationale behind Obama's support for Illinois hospitals' "neglecting to death" babies born after failed abortions. (Support he falsely and repeatedly denied in 2008, btw.)

marklewin said...Is there something inherently wrong to think that god is a fiction?

Not sure how you define inherency, but what you seem to hinting at is that atheistic philosophies were never given a real chance to develop, thrive, and evolve to something greater than 20th century Statism because they were always aborted.

Bender:I am well aware of the meaning of "Never". Are you aware that "taught" has more than one meaning, and that I may not have meant the one you assume? If you're saying that the Magisterium has never required Catholics to believe in Limbo as a matter of faith, well, duh! It seems to me that something taught by Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic theologians, which has never been included in official Church doctrine, but has also never been excluded, can be loosely said to have been taught as a possibility or suggestion or hypothesis by 'the Church'. If I'd meant it was official Church doctrine, I would have said so. It sure as Hell hasn't been excluded, and it's one of the very few hypotheses on offer.

In any case, my main point stands: that Mikio's statement was ignorant and false, as well as disgusting. Do you agree, or are you just interested in nitpicking?

"The Church has NEVER taught the existence of Limbo. NEVER. Consequently, the Church has never suggested, traditionally or otherwise, that anyone might go there."

Correct. As mentioned not long ago, if as many citizens acted as medical doctors and lawyers as act as scripture exegetes and theologians, most of the population would be jailed for posing.

Also, there is a material (canonical) difference between what a "theologian teaches" and what a "church teaches." Cf. Hans Kung. Same in medicine and law. There is opinion and there is doctrine. Both are mutable but the later much less so. They may congrue, they may not. But that addition is secondary to Bender's point here, which, well and happily, exemplifies a congruence of both opinion and doctrine.

I don't know where the idea of limbo originated. I would guess Greek Egypt because its root is a geometrical problem. The idea has speculative presence in Christian history but certainly not doctrinal. It's an unnecessary and ultimately fruitless attempt to answer or at least ameliorate the problem, which rises in human moral logic but not in phenomena, of theodicy (aka circle squaring, or finding the square root of minus one). The idea of limbo essays a topological answer to that problem.

But there is no answer to that problem, and that's why limbo is not a doctrine of the church: doctrines answer problems. The problem of theodicy is subsumed (but not answered, because it can not and need not be) in the doctrine (answer) of soteriology, and specifically, in Logos Doctrine, which founds and comprises the Church.

"We're talking omnipotence, or do you think that's some kind of joke?"

Under normal circumstances it is a joke. However, when the object of opprobrium is an AGW denier, has problems accepting same sex marriage or dares criticize the President on his merits (AKA, a RAAACISSSSTTT!!!) then we should expect the full Awesome Might and Glory of the Supreme Being of Beings to come down from the heavens and righteously smite your lowly @$$ to Kingdom Come!

I don't think that the word "fictional" is an accurate description of the views social conservatives have toward embryos and their humanity. Indeed, anyone who insists or implies that an embryo is inhuman, nor simply not human, is an idiot. Of course an embryo is not a full-grown human, nor even a viable human infant. But it's certainly not a horse or a mushroom or a rock, and to deny its humanity, or to characterize its humanity as a "fiction," is not something I can respect or agree with.

The only thing that perplexed me regarding the tampon thing is how do women choose the right tampon for themselves? The choices are endless.

When I was little I used to play store with the neigbor kids because I had one of those kid cash registers. I used these cutest little blue bags as "shopping bags" when the kids purchased a rock or some grass.

The little blue bags were my mom's tampon bags and now they were all over the neighborhood.

She reminded me that these were for her privates and made me go to all the homes in the neighborhood and retrieve the freaking little blue bags. So I would go from home to home asking for the blue bags back and the parents would all laugh at me because I used my moms tampon bags as pretend shopping bags. We lived on a shoestring budget back then and she wasn't going to go by any new tampon bags. Are those little blue bags still around? They are really adorable.

I also remember seeing some of my mom and sister's bloody tampons (NOT ON THEM) but discarded in the trash-nasty!

I read Millbank's post and had trouble following its logic. I sometimes find it curious when someone does not normally care about a particular religion, and then attempts to critique members of a religion by citing its tenets/theology.

That having been said, there may be some accidental wisdom lurking in Millbank's post. Namely that people who attempt to discern the will of God in certain events should be a whole lot more careful about doing so. Qohelet aka Ecclesiastes comes to mind. Because not only will the next "sign" be directed at *them* but it does indeed trivialize God.

"I'm virtually certain Jesus and his disciples swam naked in the Sea of Galilee."

I thought I could provide evidence to confirm this from the Bible, but when I found the story (John 21:7) I found that I remembered it wrong. Peter only fished in the buff - when he wanted to go swimming he put on clothes.

"Question to serious conservatives - how can Romney & Ryan say with a straight face that they now would allow rape as an exception when the GOP plank just adopted does not allow it? How can you vote for somebody that politically crass?"

No repub candidate is completely bound by every platform plank. They still have disgression to have their own position, and Romney/Ryan have exercised that disgression in this case. Or will you tell us with a straight face that every single dem candidate for office follows every single plank in the dem platform.

Dems will always do this, throw out one of these "what would Jesus do" things, with no real understanding themselves of what religion really dictates. One good example is claiming Jesus would support big gov programs to help the poor. If Jesus was a leftist, he would have demanded a welfare program from rome, but He did not. In reality Jesus wanted his beleivers to help the poor voluntarily, with their own money, which most beleivers do, and many dems do not.

It is hard to believe, but some Christians think aborted fetuses or any babies or young children who die do not go to heaven.

God says in Deuteronomy 1:39, “…your little ones…your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go into it, and to them will I give it, and they will possess it.”

@Christopher in MAThe above goes to you too since you were making the same argument basically. So much for you straw men claim.

Here’s where you make up an excuse about interpretation. Spare me. Let’s just skip right past that and I’ll let you have your own interpretation of that Deuteronomy passage and all others like it and grant you (for argument’s sake because I don’t need it -- I can show the anti-abortionist stance is the less moral one by numerous routes) the consistency of you and your fellow Christians’ argument that aborted embryos/fetuses may not go to Heaven. Fine.

Let’s take that reasoning further. By that claim, that anti-abortionists’ primary motivation truly is concern for the well-being of the unborn, then they should advocate that abortion be outlawed and punishable with no exceptions made for those girls/women who aborted pregnancies resulting from rape either.

Of course, the next pulled-out-of-the-ass claim is that that’s fine because pregnancies from rape don’t exist anyway. Aaaaand we’re back to Akin. And your argument would then be reduced to claiming his is not a fringe belief. And Maureen Dowd’s kickass column yesterday would be spot on.

Which is it? How far into Crazytown are you willing to go for consistency’s sake?

I'm desperate? Mikio's words were indeed a generalization, an utterly false generalization. I'm sure there are some Christians who believe that all babies who die (or are murdered) in the womb go to to Heaven, but there have been plenty - including Thomas Aquinas - who believed no such thing, and plenty more - including the current teaching of the Catholic Church - who say that we cannot know whether they go to Heaven or not, though we hope they do. So Mikio's generalization was both ignorant and untrue.

His/her latest includes more falsehoods. The speaker of Deuteronomy 1.39 is not God, it's Moses - it says so right at the beginning of the chapter, which I doubt Mikio bothered to read. (No doubt he was inspired by God, but that's not the same thing.)

More important, 1:39 isn't talking about Heaven at all, as Mikio implies by selective quotation, it's talking about the land of Canaan. The older generation sinned and were forced to wander in the desert for 40 years and not see Canaan, but their innocent children will get to see the Promised Land. Mikio thinks we will want to "maek up an excuse about interpretation", but in fact it is Mikio who must reinterpret the plain meaning of the text to fit the meaning desired. Ignorance or dishonesty? Probably a bit of each.

Yes, you are obviously desperate because I already granted whatever your own interpretation would be of that Deuteronomy passage, but you hung there to argue over it anyway failing to respond to the next stage of argument I presented. To wit:

No. Because this is the same mistake you and every other snotty atheist makes: you presume that every word in every chapter of the Bible is binding on Christians. Jesus' death and resurrection was a new covenant with His people, which supersedes the Old Covenant between God and Abraham. We don't stone witches or execute drag queens, even though Deuteronomy might tell us to, because we don't have to.

But frankly, anyone who calls any column by MoDo "kickass" is a subliterate cretin anyway. So take your self-satisfied smugness over to Kos or DU. They're more your speed.

Oh look, Mikio wants me to address his 'arguments' which are in fact lies. It is not 'crazy' to think that abortion is wrong even in the case of rape or incest, nor does thinking so in any way implying that one must share Akin's stupid maunderings about gynecology. Nor is it enough to 'grant' that I may be right when I have in fact demonstrated that Mikio was shamefully wrong in saying that Christians all believe that aborted babies go to Heaven, and contemptibly dishonest in quoting entirely out of context a verse of Deuteronomy about the land of Canaan as if it referred to Heaven.

Please go away, Mikio. If you find people declining to argue with you in the future, it doesn't mean that your arguments are irrefutable, it means that you're a common troll.